These two appeals arise out of common order rendered by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in Complaint Case Nos.6/2005 and 7/2005.. By the common order, the State Commission held that if clubbed together, both the complaints were required to be decided jointly and, therefore, the compensation claimed in each of the complaint case if is considered and added together the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission could not be exercised. 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions and facts of each of the case. Suffice it to say that the appellant sought compensation of Rs.99,50,000/- in Complaint Case No.6/05 on the allegation that the commercial plot SCO No.706 was cancelled by the respondent and the 10% amount deposited by him was forfeited without any justification. In another complaint Case No.7/05 similar prayer was made for compensation of Rs.99,50,000/- on the ground that the respondent cancelled allotment of another commercial plot and forfeited the advance amount. 3. The contention of the respondent was that there was no consumer dispute between the parties. It was further alleged that the plots were allotted to the appellants in public auction and that because of cancellation in terms of the contract, the appellant had not remained to be consumer qua the respondent. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The dispute raised by the appellant in the context of the two different complaints may be the same, but the State Commission was not under legal obligation to try the complaints together as one single case. It was possible for the State Commission to try the earlier complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 6/05 and simultaneously and separately try Complaint Case No.7/05 or to keep Complaint Case No. 7/05 behind, as could have been thought proper. The State Commission adopted rather strange method of assimilating both the complaints and thereafter reached the conclusion that if the valuation in both the complaints is considered together then it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction available to the Commission. The valuation in each of the complaint was required to be considered separately for the purpose of trial of that particular complaint. The appellant could not have been blamed for filing of two separate complaints because subject matter of the complaints was different. Obviously, the cases in both the complaints were different. It may be that the parties were the same and similar quantum of compensation was sought in both the complaints. Still, however, there is no justification for holding that after joining both the complaints together the trial could not have been held by the State Commission as it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the quantum of compensation sought in each of the complaint. 5. Having regard to the reasons ascribed by the State Commission, we are of the opinion that the joining of the complaints for the purpose of common trial by the State Commission and thereafter holding that the trial was outside the pecuniary jurisdiction is improper and illegal. The jurisdiction in each of the complaint could be determined separately as per the quantum of compensation sought. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 4.7.2005 is liable to be interfered with. We accordingly allow the appeals and direct that both the matters be remitted to the State Commission for separate consideration of the complaint cases. We make it clear that the State Commission may decide both the complaint cases separately on merits by keeping all the questions open. The State Commission may also consider the legal impact of the judgment of the High Court and also may decide the relevant issues involved in the complaints without taking into account any of the earlier observations. 6. Parties are directed to appear before the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula on 24.11.2011.